Their side of the same answers

Stakes first. Your report says ChatGPT named you in three answers out of ten on the questions your buyers ask. Is that good? On its own, nobody can say. Against a competitor named in seven of ten it's a gap with a cause, and the cause is on the pages the engine cited over yours; against a competitor named in two of ten it's a category the engines haven't settled yet, and the work is different. A visibility number without a control is a vanity number, whichever way it flatters. So we sell the control, and we priced it low enough that there's no good reason to buy the report without it.

What it is

Technical information: you name up to four competitors on the form, with their aliases and domains, the same way you name yourself. Each one you tick becomes a $50 line on the configurator rail. When your run finishes, that competitor's report is built from the same stored answers with their name as the subject and yours as a tracked competitor: their mention rate, their share of AI voice, how often they were recommended and how often passed over, which of their pages the engines cited, and how much the answers moved between passes, on exactly your questions, your engines, your model versions and your run date. It has its own link, which arrives in the email that carries your report the moment the run lands, and its own PDF, attached to that email whenever the render finishes inside the time we give it; the link is the delivery and the file is the courtesy, the same as for your own report.

The reason it's the same data and not a second run is the reason it's honest. A separate audit of a competitor, run a day later on questions drafted for them, would produce two numbers nobody could set side by side. This produces one set of answers and two readings of it, so when the gap between you is three answers in ten, it's three of the same ten.

Why $50, flat

Because no engine is asked again. The answers are already stored and already paid for, the extraction already listed every brand each answer mentioned, and the competitor report is a second reading of rows you own. Cost isn't what sets the price, so we priced it as the piece of work it is, a report with its own PDF, rather than as a share of the report above it, which is how it started: until the 9th of September a competitor report cost 35% of whatever your report cost, so the same reading cost $63 on a $180 report and nearly $310 on an $885 one. That was arithmetic, not a decision, and we replaced it. It's $50 whether the report above it cost $25 or a thousand, and on a monthly it's $50 a month per competitor, re-run beside your report on the same questions.

What it does not do

It doesn't diagnose their losses. The gap diagnosis in your report was made by fetching the pages the engines cited over yours and classifying why, and that says nothing about a competitor's pages, so their report carries no fix list rather than someone else's. It doesn't check their organic rank. It can only name a competitor you named, with the aliases you listed; a product line you left off isn't credited to them any more than it would be to you. It's not a report about their traffic, their spend or their site, and it's chosen when you order rather than added to a finished report, because it's built from the run it rides on.

And it tells them nothing. Nobody is contacted, nothing is sent, and no page is fetched from them that wasn't already fetched to diagnose your own losses. The report is written the way we'd want ours written if we were the subject: the same method, the same disclosures, the same failure banner where a call died. We won't dress a rival's numbers to make yours look better, and we'd rather you distrusted a report that did.

What to do with it

Read the two source maps side by side. The domains cited for them and not for you are the third-party pages your category is being decided on, and they're the most concrete list of places to be that any report can give you; the 90-day action plan, if you take it, is built from that difference. Then read the volatility. A competitor named in seven of ten with low volatility is settled; one named in seven of ten with high volatility is a lead the engines haven't made up their mind about, and that's the category to go after first.

Tick the competitors when you order, and their reports arrive with yours. If you'd like us to close the gap the two reports show, we do the work at our agency rates and the next month's pair of reports grades us on it, on their questions as much as yours. We hope the first pair lands with less daylight between you than you feared, and we'd be glad to help make the second one closer than the first.